Something about the Miami building collapse that no one is asking:

[moniss]

113. My

comment about fasteners was just in the general sense of things failing whether a building or mechanical device. The insurance company would have to cover under an errors and omissions basis. Same for all entities that had any contracting, inspection or permitting work for this building. The contractor may not be around or the insurance company in its' original form but insurance law requires that if a company sells out to another the liabilities go with. If the company simply goes out of business most states have a shared liability pool that all insurers are required to participate in and contribute to. It's really just like insurance on insurance. Most commonly referred to as a "reinsurance" concept. They calculate future risk to the base of the insurance that company had out there and then come up with a calculated amount that will be needed each year to cover any losses. Then they approach the big time insurance gamblers like those on the Lloyds of London exchange and then they determine their premium numbers and hopefully book a tidy profit. All of that goes well for them until something like this happens but they are always backed up by massive cash reserves if unexpected losses happen. Sort of an insurance on the insurance on the insurance. All of that doesn't mean they willingly pay and I believe that the court case could go on for many decades unless people want to settle.